Apologetics Guy » Atheismhttp://www.apologeticsguy.com
Accessible Apologetics Training with Mikel Del RosarioWed, 04 Feb 2015 03:41:43 +0000en-UShourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1Apologetics Guyhttp://0.gravatar.com/avatar/14498005e6f87e5530e8d525bdbfa18c.png?s=48http://www.apologeticsguy.com
Atheism and Evil in the Name of Godhttp://www.apologeticsguy.com/2014/09/evil-in-the-name-of-god/
http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2014/09/evil-in-the-name-of-god/#commentsMon, 08 Sep 2014 14:00:16 +0000http://www.apologeticsguy.com/?p=8933Evil in the Name of God I recently saw an animated short created by an atheist on YouTube. In this video, a bunch of theists were trying to tell an atheist about God. But then the theists began to threaten each other with weapons and argue over whose religion was right! Not surprisingly, the atheist character came […]

Evil in the Name of God

I recently saw an animated short created by an atheist on YouTube. In this video, a bunch of theists were trying to tell an atheist about God. But then the theists began to threaten each other with weapons and argue over whose religion was right! Not surprisingly, the atheist character came out as the level-headed one as he tried to calm everyone down and stop the violence. Although this cartoon caricatured religious people, it did reveal a bit about how some skeptics see religiously-motivated violence and why they so quickly reject a belief in God.

Today, it seems like a lot of the news stories we see tend to include reports of violence that are somehow linked to religion. So it’s no surprise that one of the objections skeptics raise is the evil and suffering that happens because of violent crimes motivated by religion.

In this post, I’ll share a couple of ways to navigate conversations with people who raise this kind of a challenge, but tend to lump Christianity in with every other world religion.

How can we respond when people say that the evils done in the name of God are the reason they say God isn’t real? Can there be a way forward that gets us into open conversations about evil, morality and the existence of God?

Christianity and World Religions

Maybe you’ve encountered an atheist friend or co-worker who says that militants working with ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other groups have very religious motivations for violating human rights. But this seems to presents a false dichotomy which downplays the uniqueness of Christianity.

Don’t go there. Don’t let the conversation be framed as an “atheists vs. theists” kind of thing. Don’t get stuck trying to defend religion in general. As you have the God conversation, it’s important to explain that Christianity isn’t just one of many traditions out there.

Talking about evil? Don’t make it an “atheist vs. theist” thing. Christianity is unique.Click To Tweet

While religion itself isn’t evil, false beliefs about God and morality can have devastating consequences. One religious person’s belief that “it’s good to be a terrorist” is way different than another religious person’s belief that “it’s good to be a pacifist.” Do these beliefs produce the same kinds of people?

As I’ve previously noted in my 9/11 post on evil and religion, theists of any kind who do evil in the name of God are directly disobeying Jesus’ commands to love not only our neighbors, but even our enemies (Matt. 5:44; Lk 10:25-37). Of course, someone can say they follow Jesus and then turn around and violate someone’s human rights. But the Apostle John says you’re a total liar if you live like that (1 Jn 2:4).

In fact, Jesus’ commands have historically motivated his followers to establish hospitals and alleviate human suffering through countless humanitarian missions around the world. So, terrorists who wrap their evil actions up in religious terms don’t represent everyone who believes in God and they especially do not represent the teachings of Jesus.

Pointing this out is one way to respond to the observation that evil people can have religious motives for hurting others.

Evil and Institutionalized Atheism

Beyond this, an atheist who raises this challenge seems to ignore the fact that there’s been terrible stuff done in the name of atheism, too. While all kinds of people are capable of great evil, this is especially obvious in the record of institutionalized atheism under Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pott, Lenin and Stalin and Khrushchev. Greg Koukl noted this exact thing in his post, “The Real Murderers: Atheism or Christianity?”

My point is not that Christians or religious people aren’t [capable of] …terrible crimes. Certainly they are. But it is not religion that produces these things; it is the denial of Biblical religion that generally leads to this kind of things. The statistics that are the result of irreligious genocide stagger the imagination.

In other words, the capacity for evil is there in all of us. But the thing is, totalitarian regimes have perpetuated evils in a way that seems totally consistent with a naturalistic worldview which rejects the reality of objective good or objective evil.

Finding Common Ground

Can we find enough common ground to have a meaningful dialogue with our atheist neighbors? Consider how non-religious motivations–like nationalism or racism–have resulted in a fierce outpourings of persecution and unspeakable violence against religious groups as well.

The holocaust was a product in which religion—if I can say it this way—was the victim. It took it on the chin in the holocaust because someone was a particular race and held a particular religion. The goal was to wipe them off the face of the earth. And that wasn’t religiously motivated, that was motivated by something else. If we’re going to rank the most horrific things that have happened in our recent memory, certainly the holocaust makes 9/11 pale in comparison.

Indeed, while the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C. resulted in the deaths of about 3,000 people in the United States, the unspeakable evil perpetrated by the Nazi regime against at least 6 million Jewish people easily ranks as one of the greatest atrocities in history.

Interestingly, Dr. Glenn Kreider replies to Dr. Bock’s comment on the podcast by suggesting that even this recognition may help create a space for conversations on the nature and origin of morality:

Most (atheists) would agree with us on that and would repudiate very similarly. So it’s a place where in the midst of a vitriolic attack, in the midst of great conflict, to say, “We’re on the same page here.” None of us wants to be a defender of the misuse of religion–any religion–and so we do have some common ground here in which we can stand.

If the common ground he’s talking about is the universal outcry against all kinds of injustice and oppression, then this realization seems to point to an objective standard of goodness that goes way beyond what cultures and societies construct. Perhaps this could this be a way forward, a starting point, for open conversation about biblical teaching on good and evil.

In the end, religiously-motivated evil isn’t really an argument against the existence of God. And unlike naturalism, the biblical worldview actually recognizes the reality of objective evil. And it offers us a hope that looks forward to the final defeat of evil by a God whose very nature is the moral grounding for objective good.

Engaging the New Atheism

Check out the Table Podcasts I mentioned in this post. I worked on these episodes in conjunction with an interactive session on the New Atheism at Dallas Theological Seminary. If you watch closely, you’ll see me show up during the question and answer session at the end of the third video (26:33)!

]]>http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2014/09/evil-in-the-name-of-god/feed/0What Everyone Should Know About The Problem of Evilhttp://www.apologeticsguy.com/2014/08/the-problem-of-evil/
http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2014/08/the-problem-of-evil/#commentsTue, 12 Aug 2014 14:00:53 +0000http://www.apologeticsguy.com/?p=8708The Problem of Evil Over the past couple of years, I’ve heard from hundreds of high school and college students who say that the number one challenge to the existence of God is the evil and suffering we see in the world. But how well does the problem of evil really argue for the atheist conclusion? Does […]

The Problem of Evil

Over the past couple of years, I’ve heard from hundreds of high school and college students who say that the number one challenge to the existence of God is the evil and suffering we see in the world. But how well does the problem of evil really argue for the atheist conclusion? Does evil really mean there’s no God? And can atheism really help us make better sense of evil?

In this post, I’ll share three things I think everyone should know about the Problem of Evil.

If God exists, either He can do nothing to stop the most egregious calamities, or He does not care to. God, therefore, is either impotent or evil.

But look, if God exists at all, atheism is false.

So, if God exists, but he’s too weak to stop evil, atheism is false.

And if God exists, but doesn’t care to stop evil, atheism is still false!

No, the Problem of Evil isn’t an argument against the existence of God. It’s actually a specific a challenge to the Judeo-Christian conception of a good and all-powerful God. Now, that’s the kind of God I believe in—and so I’ve got to be ready to do some work to show that God and evil can in fact co-exist. But the rest of the story is that God can have good reasons for allowing evil.

The mere fact that I can’t figure out why God allows some of the things to happen that he does, or maybe most of the things that happen that he does, is not warrant for the conclusion that he’s got no such reasons, or even worse that there is no such God.

Here, Blount is saying that human ignorance isn’t a proper basis for concluding anything about God’s reasons. And human ignorance isn’t a good reason to believe that the God of the Bible isn’t real either. The idea that God can have good reasons for allowing evil shows us that God and evil can logically co-exist.

But some still insist that all the evil and suffering in the world, especially the stuff that seems totally pointless to us, must mean there’s no God. I get it. My heart breaks when I see this kind of stuff, too. But this leads into the second thing I think everyone should know about the Problem of Evil.

2. The Problem of Evil Doesn’t Mean There’s No God

Here’s why the Problem of Evil doesn’t automatically lead us to the doorstep of atheism: Remember how Harris started out saying that if God exists, then either God’s too weak to stop evil or he doesn’t care to stop it? Well, even though the problem of evil is often presented as an “either-or” kind of thing, it’s really not.

Harris actually shows this is a false dichotomy by presenting the atheist conclusion as kind of a “third option.” But is the only other option to say that there’s no God?

Not at all.

And here’s why:

The Christian worldview gives us another option that atheists often leave out of the equation. This answer expands on the point I just mentioned: God can have good reasons for allowing evil—even if we don’t know what those reasons are.

God can have good reasons for allowing evil even if we don’t know what his reasons are.Click To Tweet

Let me illustrate this: I remember there was this one day after I became a dad. My wife and I had to take our baby to the doctor to get a shot. Actually, they gave him 4 shots–2 in each leg! He cried. I cried, too. And it was like, “Wow, ‘welcome to fatherhood!'”

But of course, our baby boy had no clue why we were allowing this pain in to his life. But we knew there was a greater good there–That allowing him to feel pain for a few seconds would reduce his risk of getting some really serious illnesses.

Here’s what I learned from this situation at the pediatrician’s office: Just because something might seem pointless to us, doesn’t mean God can’t have a morally justified reason for it. We’re just not in a good place to make that call.

Come to think of it, God’s reasons for allowing evil might not necessarily be thing kind of thing that we should expect fully understand. It actually takes some humility to admit the role of human finiteness in understanding why God allows evil.

Still, the one thing that we do know if that God will one day defeat evil. On the same episode of the Table Podcast on the New Atheism, Dr. Glenn Kreider said:

If God is good and evil exists, then God will one day do something about evil and that we have an eschatological hope that evil and all of its effects will one day be removed. So there is a redemptive work of God and he is acting redemptively in a fallen world.

So what are we left with if we reject the Christian perspective on evil and buy in to the atheist alternative? Not much that can help make better sense of the evil and suffering we see in the world today.

3. The Problem of Evil Isn’t Just a Christian Problem

The Problem of Evil isn’t just a Christian problem. Evil is everybody’s problem! Everyone experiences evil, regardless of what you believe. So, what’s the naturalistic take on evil?

If atheism is true, there’s no basis for objective moral values and duties. And if everything’s ultimately reducible to physical processes and matter just behaving according to law, it seems pretty tough to build a moral foundation that doesn’t leave you as a total subjectivist.

Here’s what I mean: If there’s no good and no evil, like Richard Dawkins says in his book, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, then there is “no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference” in our universe. How’s that for a description of reality?

What this means is that if atheism’s true, then what’s “good” or what’s “evil” is basically just you saying what you happen to like or what you happen to not like. So as an atheist, you could say “I don’t happen to like the idea of human trafficking” or “I don’t prefer to be the victim of spousal abuse.” But you couldn’t have any kind of real, moral grounding to call it objectively evil—if atheism is true.

So, becoming an atheist doesn’t seem to help us make better sense of evil. But even more than this, the atheist position’s got another problem to deal with: The Problem of Good. In other words, naturalism has the challenge of providing a sufficient moral grounding for goodness itself—in addition to making sense of evil in the world. And that’s a pretty tall order for a philosophy with absolutely no room for God.

Despite all the ruckus coming from many followers of the New Atheism, The Problem of Evil really isn’t an argument for atheism. It doesn’t automatically lead us to atheist conclusion and it doesn’t seem to help us make better sense of evil. The fact that God can have good reasons for allowing evil—even if we don’t know what those reasons are defeats the whole notion that it’s impossible for God and evil to co-exist.

Q&A Session on The Problem of Evil

In this video clip, Pastor Mark Henkel at Bridgeway Christian Church asks a question from the audience: “Mikel…without using free will as a main support, how can you argue for the omnipotence of God when dealing with the problem of evil and suffering?”

Like this video? Click below to share it on Twitter!

Q&A Video: @ApologeticsGuy responds to the problem of evil without appealing to free willClick To Tweet

This was taken from a conference called Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World in Rocklin, CA featuring J.P. Moreland, Craig Hazen, John Mark Reynolds, Sean McDowell and Mikel Del Rosario.

]]>http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2014/08/the-problem-of-evil/feed/9Naturalism – A Good Reason to Rally?http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2012/05/naturalism-atheist-reason-rally/
http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2012/05/naturalism-atheist-reason-rally/#commentsMon, 07 May 2012 06:25:19 +0000http://www.apologeticsguy.com/?p=5962Today, I’m featuring a special guest post from one of my former mentors, R. Scott Smith, Associate Professor of Ethics and Christian Apologetics at Biola University. Dr. Smith was my adviser while I was doing my graduate studies in the Christian Apologetics Program at Biola University. I studied under him in the areas of ethics, philosophy and historical […]

Today, I’m featuring a special guest post from one of my former mentors, R. Scott Smith, Associate Professor of Ethics and Christian Apologetics at Biola University. Dr. Smith was my adviser while I was doing my graduate studies in the Christian Apologetics Program at Biola University. I studied under him in the areas of ethics, philosophy and historical theology.

His guest post might sound a bit technical if you’re totally new to philosophy, but thinking hard about this stuff might help you understand naturalism more–maybe a bit more than your atheist friends. His latest work is aimed at the upper division undergraduate audience, or those with some philosophy training: Naturalism and Our Knowledge of Reality.

I’d encourage you to read his guest post and then check out the audio recording of his discussion with my friend, Brian Auten, at the end of this post.

Guest Post by R. Scott Smith

A Good Reason to Rally?

At the “Reason Rally” in Washington, secular, atheistic people gathered in support of “reason” over [mere] “faith” of religious people. Not so hidden in the background was the widely-held cultural mindset that science uses reason and uniquely gives us knowledge of truth (the facts). But religion gives us just personal opinions and preferences, not knowledge. This bifurcation often is called the “fact-value split.”

Naturalism: “There Is No God”

This science is naturalistic; only what is scientifically knowable (i.e., by the five senses) is real. In principle, such things as God, souls, and mental states (i.e., non-physical things like thoughts, beliefs, and experiences) cannot be known to be real. Or, simplifying, they don’t exist. Yet, we can test natural, physical stuff scientifically, so that is what is believed to be real. That view of reality is the philosophy undergirding atheistic evolution by natural selection (NS) – naturalism. There’s only the physical universe, without anything non-physical.

Until Darwin, many believed there were non-physical essential natures that separated living things into kinds. Afterwards, biological classification is understood as one interconnected “tree of life” – all living things share a common ancestor.

Naturalism, Truth and Knowledge

Now, how do we know what’s true on this view? Consider Daniel Dennett, a leading philosopher, neuroscientist, and New Atheist, who takes evolution by NS very seriously. For him, NS is blind – without any goal planning, thinking about some desired outcome, believing something, or trying to make something happen. And since non-physical mental states aren’t real, the qualities they would have, e.g., their representing something (their being of or about something) also would not be real. There are only brain states, physical patterns, and behavior we take (interpret) to be about something.

Dennett realizes that if there were real, intrinsic (something that’s so due to what kind of thing it is), essential natures, there could be a “deeper” fact (beyond just behavior) of what our thoughts (or beliefs, experiences) are really about. Just due to what those mental states would be essentially, they really could be of their objects, and not something else.

But, since evolution by NS denies any such essences, Dennett says we only interpret the behavior of people (and sophisticated computers and robots) as being “about” their objects. But that’s all we have to go on – just our interpretations, which we attribute to a person. Based on someone’s behaviors, we interpret them to mean the person is thinking “about” something (e.g., an errand to Lowe’s), but that’s just how we talk. In reality, there isn’t any real “aboutness” to us.

But, there could be other interpretations too. Maybe the thought is “of” something else (e.g., a movie on HBO). But, there’s no fact of the matter we can appeal to, to settle the issue. Dennett admits for that to be so, there would have to be an essence to the thought’s being of something, so that it really is about the errand, not the movie.

But without essences, we’re left only with interpretations; but, of what? Apparently, another interpretation; but if we keep pressing that question, we’re left just with interpretations of interpretations, etc., without any way to get started and experience something as it is, simply because no mental state is really about anything.

Bu the same problem applies to our own mental life. Any mental state doesn’t have an essence to be about anything in particular. If they cannot really be about something, then how would we ever know how things really are?

Our Experience Tells a Different Story

Fortunately, that’s not how we experience life. Our mental states seem to have three essential features:

They’re “particularized.” My thought about tonight’s dinner, or my experience of drinking a Starbuck’s chocolate smoothie, is not generic or unspecified. Each is about something particular.

These mental states must be about something. It doesn’t seem we could have one that lacks this quality. (Try having a thought that isn’t about anything!)

That “ofness” seems to be intrinsic, or essential, to each mental state. My thought about last night’s dinner could not be about anything else and still be the thought it is. I could observe the price of gas at the Exxon station, but that experience couldn’t have been of my dinner.

God: The Best Explanation

How do we best explain these three apparently essential features of mental states? Dennett realizes that if mental states had essential natures, they really could be of their intended objects, so we could know them.

If athesitic evolution by NS were true, we’d be in a beginningless series of interpretations, without any knowledge. Yet, we know many things. So, naturalism & NS are false – non-physical essences exist. But, what’s their explanation? Being non-physical, it can’t be evolution. So, maybe we have souls that use them. It seems likely their best explanation is there’s a Creator after all.

Listen to This

Check out R. Scott Smith’s interview with my friend, Brian Auten, at Apologetics 315. In this interview, he talks about what naturalism is, why people want to be naturalists, the evolutionary argument against naturalism and how to test religious truth-claims. Listen now.

]]>http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2012/05/naturalism-atheist-reason-rally/feed/12The Reason Rally and Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain Worldhttp://www.apologeticsguy.com/2012/02/atheism-reason-rally-reasonable-faith-apologetics-conference/
http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2012/02/atheism-reason-rally-reasonable-faith-apologetics-conference/#commentsMon, 20 Feb 2012 16:49:57 +0000http://www.apologeticsguy.com/?p=5810The Reason Rally On March 24, Richard Dawkins and a number of outspoken atheists plan to gather in Washington D.C. for what is being called “the largest gathering of the secular movement in world history.” One of the goals of the Reason Rally is to celebrate atheism and advance secularism in society. Here’s what stands out […]

The Reason Rally

On March 24, Richard Dawkins and a number of outspoken atheists plan to gather in Washington D.C. for what is being called “the largest gathering of the secular movement in world history.” One of the goals of the Reason Rally is to celebrate atheism and advance secularism in society.

Here’s what stands out to me: Underlying this movement seems to be the idea that science and reason ultimately support naturalism—that truly reasonable people reject a belief in God. But something about this seems kind of odd…

Atheism and Reason

It’s interesting that the new atheism has often caricatured Christian belief as “blind faith,” while using reason as a theme for their entire movement. Here’s what’s odd to me: If atheism is true, why should we trust our reason at all? Naturalistic evolution is all about survival-enhancing behaviors—not true beliefs. For example:

Imagine you were lost in a jungle and came upon a hungry lion. But for some odd reason, you thought the hungry lion was actually cute little bunny. Then, you said to yourself, “I’m gonna go pet that cute little bunny.” But for another odd reason, you had the false belief that the best way to pet the animal was to run into a cave and hide. So, every time you saw a hungry lion, you ran into a cave to hide. If false beliefs could promote a survival-enhancing behavior, it seems that using reason may not be a reliable way to arrive at truth within the naturalistic framework.

Here’s my point: If human reasoning was just the product of natural selection, why should we trust our reasoning? When it comes to celebrating reason, it seems to me that naturalism—as a worldview—isn’t the best fit.

Still, many atheists have been emotionally hurt by Christians. And I believe positive things can happen when reasonable people get together, honestly see each other as real people, and respectfully dialogue about worldview issues. I hope some of this can happen in Washington D.C.

The Christian Response in D.C.

Something you might not know is that I used to live in Maryland and spent a good amount of time playing tourist in Washington D.C. (Although I haven’t been back east since 2003). I just learned that some of my brothers and sisters from around the world—people who believe that Christianity is a reasonable worldview—also plan to gather in D.C. on March 24 to “demonstrate a humble, loving and thoughtful response to the Reason Rally.” They’re mobilizing people via a Web site called TrueReason.org

They plan to hang out in small groups, giving out bottled water and talking with anyone who’s interested in discussing religion, faith, and reason. A special resource on atheism and Christianity is also in the works–a collaboration among professional apologists and members of the Christian Apologetics Alliance. More on this later.

But the Christian response isn’t limited to our nation’s capital. We’re presenting reasons to believe from coast to coast. And on March 24, I’ll be equipping believers to give a rational defense of our reasonable faith in my local area.

Defenders in California

Here on the West Coast, we’ve got a very cool apologetics training event happening the same weekend as the Reason Rally. To organize this, I’ve once again partnered with Biola University and Bridgeway Christian Church for Reasonable Faith in an Uncertain World II.

We got such a great response last year, that I’ll once again be speaking alongside top defenders of the faith like J.P. Moreland, Craig Hazen, John Mark Reynolds, and Sean McDowell.

If you live within a couple of hours from the Greater Sacramento area, I’d like to invite you to join us for accessible apologetics training in Rocklin, California. This all happens on March 23 and 24.

Attitude Adjustment

How did 9/11 change America’s attitude toward religion? An interesting post on CNN’s Belief Blog says: “Before 9/11, many atheists kept a low profile. Something changed, though, after 9/11. They got loud… Criticism of all religion, not just fanatical cults, was no longer taboo after 9/11.” Indeed. Around the 10-year anniversary of 9/11, American Atheists hit the nightly news by suing to remove a steel cross from the September 11 memorial, even as others were calling it a national monument and a symbol of hope. Still, many atheists continue to say 9/11 is a perfect example of why religion itself is evil. Is Religion Evil?

Is Religion Evil?

Reminds me of reading Sam Harris’ The End of Faith years ago. I remember when he started to get popular by insisting that religion itself is dangerous and evil. Although he’s got a lot of fans, a Religion Dispatches article recently called him “more charismatic than credentialled” as a speaker. In the same article, Harris is quoted as saying, “I’m kind of self-taught in religion…I’ve never studied it formally with anyone.” But he’s not the only one who’s taken the spotlight. Another popular atheist, the late Christopher Hitchens, once called religion a poison that makes people give up their reason. But after his now infamous debate on the reasons for belief in God with William Lane Craig, even an atheist reviewer called Hitchens a “rambling and incoherent” speaker, even a “loudmouthed journalist,” saying “Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.” Indeed, some are saying this debate marked the beginning of the downfall of the so-called “new atheism” in America. Time will tell.

New Atheists: Just Say “No” to Tolerance?

Still, I’m not sure why atheists like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens think they can convince you and me that it’s unreasonable to believe in God if they’re really convinced that we won’t listen to reason. Whatever the case, some who follow the New Atheists believe that religion is intolerant–so perhaps it shouldn’t be tolerated at all in America. But over a decade after 9/11, many Americans are still asking this question: Is religion evil?

In this post, I’ll show you a quick way to explain why religion itself isn’t evil—even in a post-9/11 America.

While teaching a couple of world religions courses at local universities, I often heard students say things like, “This is just like in all religion…” But lumping all religions together just tells me you haven’t done your homework. Saying religion itself is dangerous is like saying belief itself is dangerous. Of course, we don’t just believe—we believe ideas, like “Barack Obama is the President of the United States,” “Ben and Jerry’s Cherry Garcia ice cream is delicious,” and “It is always wrong to torture babies for fun.” Ideas are powerful. And they have consequences.

Apples and Oranges

Comparing the beliefs of religious people is often like comparing apples and oranges. Or take music as an example. Imagine you’re at a CD store browsing through a new age section with a bunch of quiet stuff like Enya and Loreena McKennitt. Then you see another section with a bunch of Megadeth, P.O.D and Korn. You wouldn’t lump all this stuff together and say “all music is noisy.” After all, they’re all basically the same. They all use instruments and vocals to produce songs, right? Why do this with religion? Consider these two beliefs:

It’s good to be a terrorist.

It’s good to be a pacifist.

Obviously, a Muslim extremist’s belief that “it’s good to be a terrorist” is way different than a Quaker’s belief that “it’s good to be a pacifist.” For example, contrast the September 11 terrorist attacks with the Quakers’ influence on colonial Pennsylvania—which was basically unarmed as a matter of policy for about 75 years! So, is religion itself evil? Ask yourself: “Are these beliefs both dangerous or evil? Do they produce the same kinds of people or actions?”

What Would Jesus Do?

There’s a reason the teachings of Jesus has been a force of good in the world–for Christians and non-Christians alike: When Jesus said “love your neighbor,” he didn’t just mean our friends and family. He meant anyone who needs help. Historically, these Christian beliefs resulted in the invention of hospitals, the abolition of slavery, and the alleviation of human suffering through countless humanitarian missions around the world.

Terrorists who wrap their evil actions up in religious terms don’t represent everyone who believes in God any more than communist governments that have collectively murdered hundreds of millions represent all atheists.

Of course, anyone can say, “I’m religious” or even claim to follow Jesus—and then turn around and commit some psycho heinous act that’s totally against what Jesus taught. But the Apostle John actually said that you’re a total liar if you live like that (1 John 2:4-6). Reminds me of how Greg Koukl likes to say, “Not everyone who claims Christ is claimed byChrist.” Biblical Christianity shows that religion itself isn’t evil. So it’s not really religion itself that’s the problem. It’s the content of certain beliefs that we need to carefully evaluate for truth. Because ideas have consequences.

Religion itself isn’t dangerous. But false beliefs about God can have devastating consequences.Click To Tweet

The Gardener and the Brain Surgeon

J.P. Moreland once illustrated this in a class by telling the story of the Gardener and the Brain Surgeon. And it goes something like this: Imagine a gardener thinks a special bush you planted was a weed. You hired him to come out and weed your yard and he pulls up your special bush. That wouldn’t be good, but it’s not the end of the world. Just go to the store, buy yourself another special bush and tell the gardener not to pull your new special bush. No big deal, right? But, what if you need brain surgery and you hear your brain surgeon asking one of the staff, “Now, when I operate on this guy…um…Isn’t the brain located somewhere near the heart?” Now, if that actually happened, you’d better run and find yourself another brain surgeon! Here’s the point. Sometimes being wrong about something isn’t a big deal, like the case of the gardener. Sometimes, it’s a huge deal, like in the case with the brain surgeon. As Moreland put it:

The more important the issue, the greater the harm in having a false belief. Your picture of God is more like brain surgery than gardening…How a person thinks about God has a huge impact on the way they live the rest of their lives.

Religion isn’t dangerous. Rather, it’s false beliefs about God that can have devastating consequences. In light of 9/11, William Lane Craig noted:

I think the Muslim terrorists have made a terrible mistake. And the reason is: I think they have the wrong god. The god that they think has commanded them to do this doesn’t exist. Therefore, they are terribly, and tragically mistaken.

Seems like 9/11 brought Americans together in a way no other national tragedy has—at least in my lifetime. We all stood back in horror and called it a “Day of Evil.” A decade after 9/11, even the late Christopher Hitchens wrote that this remains the best description and most essential fact about al-Qaida: Simply Evil. I agree.

Something’s Wrong

Terrorism is evil and it’s not the way things should be. But it’s another in-your-face reminder that there’s something horribly wrong with our world. How does the Christian worldview make sense of this? Some of my friends have joined me in posting their thoughts on the issues related to evil, terrorism and religion after 9/11. I encourage you to browse through these related posts from around the apologetics blogosphere (listed in alphabetical order).*

*Note: The links above don’t imply that I necessarily agree with all of the views expressed by each and every author. Biblical Christianity includes a diverse group of people from a variety of traditions united in Jesus Christ by the essential convictions of our historic faith.

Today, I’m pleased to feature an exclusive guest post by my friend, Melissa C. Travis—a graduate student in the Science and Religion program at Biola University. She’s also a fellow apologetics blogger. Melissa blogs at http://www.hard-corechristianity.com.

Hot Topic: Science and Religion

Mature Christians have an insatiable desire for knowledge of God. We study Scripture to learn what He has to teach us through Special Revelation, and we study His creation (Natural Revelation) through which we perceive a number of of His attributes. Romans 1:20 says:

For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.

Natural Revelation involves the various scientific disciplines that have developed over the ages to unlock the secrets of the heavens, the earth, and life.

Science vs. Christianity?

Unfortunately, there is the common misperception that science and Scripture are either in a stalemate conflict, or they are mutually exclusive, having no bearing upon one another whatsoever. Both views are incorrect. Science and theology do seek to answer some of the same questions about the world and about life; Scripture isn’t silent on the subject of nature and not all scientific theorizing is religiously neutral (contrary to what the secular scientific community claims). Therefore, we cannot simply compartmentalize science and theology, and we shouldn’t avoid the sciences completely, as if they are some kind of dreadful menace to our faith. I believe J.P. Moreland said it best in Christianity and the Nature of Science:

In order to be a fully actualized and integrated human being and a mature Christian with no secular/sacred dichotomy, one needs a coherent, intellectually satisfying Christian world view. Such a world view involves, among other things, fitting science and theology together in a harmonious way (141).

Truth in Harmony

So, what is the appropriate relationship between the two? I share Stephen Meyer‘s view that they should co-exist in qualified agreement (See his essay in Science & Christianity: Four Views). When the sciences and theology are each properly understood, the truths they elucidate will be in harmony with one another. What’s more, the natural sciences have revealed evidence for cosmic fine-tuning and biological design, which points to an intelligent agent that transcends the universe—a designer that is compatible with, and offers philosophical support for, Judeo-Christian theism.

A Stepping-Stone Apologetic

Take caution, though. Where the discipline of Christian Apologetics is concerned, it isn’t accurate to say that “the sciences prove the existence of God.” Rather, our claim should be that the sciences are increasingly offering evidential support for theism and for the associated truth-claims of Judeo-Christian Scripture. I have come to think of the study of the sciences–within a theistic paradigm–as a “stepping stone” apologetic: essential for a cumulative and comprehensive argument for Christianity.

Study the Relationship of Science and Christianity

For the Christian (scientifically inclined or not) who has realized that they have much to learn on this subject, I would like to offer just a few resource recommendations so that you’re not overwhelmed by all the choices at your disposal.

About Melissa

Melissa is a graduate student at Biola University, studying for the Master of Arts in Science and Religion. She holds a Bachelor’s degree in biology and worked in biotechnology and pharmaceutical research for five years after obtaining her undergraduate degree. She has spent more than a decade studying the science and philosophy pertaining to the origins debate and is also currently working toward her certification in general Christian apologetics from Biola. She directs The Woodlands, Texas chapter of Reasonable Faith and welcomes opportunities to speak and teach on scientific apologetics to youth and adults. Her blog is www.hard-corechristianity.com.

]]>http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2011/06/religion-science-and-christianity/feed/5Are You Good Without God? Why this Atheist Billboard is Wronghttp://www.apologeticsguy.com/2011/02/are-you-good-without-god/
http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2011/02/are-you-good-without-god/#commentsTue, 01 Feb 2011 15:30:59 +0000http://www.apologeticsguy.com/?p=2958Are You Good without God? While I was driving from Sacramento to the Bay Area, I saw a huge billboard that read, “Are you good without God? Millions Are.” I also noticed a theistic tagger added the words, “Also Lost?” at the end of the message. At first, I wondered if the original question could […]

Are You Good without God?

While I was driving from Sacramento to the Bay Area, I saw a huge billboard that read, “Are you good without God? Millions Are.” I also noticed a theistic tagger added the words, “Also Lost?” at the end of the message. At first, I wondered if the original question could mean something like, “Do you feel comfortable without a belief in God? Millions feel the same way.” Kind of like if you offer someone a drink, and they say, “No, thanks. I’m good.” But I don’t think that’s what the message is all about.

Can’t People be Good Without God?

So, then it got me thinking, “Can’t people be good without God?” I mean, couldn’t an atheist do some really good things without God? I guess if we mean “doing the right thing while not believing in God,” then sure. An atheist could do the right thing. For example, they could honestly report their income to the government, be faithful their spouse and so forth. And why not? But maybe the better question is, “Why?” Why even care about being moral?

Why Do the Right Thing?

Think about it like this: If God’s not real, there’s no moral law giver and no such things as objective moral commands. If that’s true, then why not say, “I’ll do the right thing when it makes me feel good or gives me an advantage, and I’ll do the wrong thing when it makes me feel good or gives me an advantage.” Or why not say, “I hereby declare from this day forward that it’s always right to steal.”

If there’s no God and no objective moral standard, there’s no moral difference between abusing someone or taking care of them. Basically, good and evil are reduced to preference. All you could say is, “I don’t like terrorism,” or “I’m not into slavery.” “Human trafficking isn’t my thing.” But who can really live like this? Some things are really wrong. For example, we all know by intuition that it’s better to give a little girl a loving hug than to hurt her for no reason.

If there’s no God, good and evil are reduced to preference. #apologeticsClick To Tweet

Right, Wrong, and the Moral Law

Imagine my 6-year-old asked you who wrote this blog post. It’d be dumb to say “No one. And if you think I’m wrong, don’t forget I can read better than you!” The existence of this post implies an author. And it really doesn’t matter if you can read this post better than a kid. Here’s the point: Moral commands imply a moral lawgiver. They are a form of communication from one mind to another. And it doesn’t matter if a certain atheist happens to do more good deeds than a certain Christian.

So maybe people really can’t be good without God after all. I mean, if there’s no God, there’s no standard of goodness. On top of that, when we compare ourselves to God’s standard, it turns out no one is good—no one’s lived up to the standard. That’s what Jesus said in Mark 10:18. Keep in mind that niceness isn’t goodness. Don’t you think the Neo-Nazi moms bake cookies for their kids or hand out cupcakes at their birthday parties? Sure they do. Jesus also said it’s no big deal if we’re nice to the people we like (Matt. 5:46-47). How do we treat everyone else?

So I guess the real answer to the question, “Are you good without God?” is “No. None of us are.” That’s why we need forgiveness. That’s why we need God. Millions and millions do.

Like this post?

If you liked my post on the “Are You Good without God?” billboard, please click the text below to share it on Twitter. Thanks!

“Are you good without God?” Here’s what’s wrong with this atheist slogan. #apologeticsClick To Tweet

]]>http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2011/02/are-you-good-without-god/feed/28Audio: Atheists Turned Apologistshttp://www.apologeticsguy.com/2010/12/audio-former-atheists-stephen-notman-holly-ordway/
http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2010/12/audio-former-atheists-stephen-notman-holly-ordway/#commentsFri, 03 Dec 2010 05:55:31 +0000http://www.apologeticsguy.com/?p=2652Listen to This You might remember how I met Holly Ordway and Steven Notman—2 atheists turned apologists—while leading a seminar at the Bayside Apologetics Conference featuring J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. I never got to hear their presentation, cause I was lecturing at the exact same time. But I did read Holly’s book, Not […]

Listen to This

You might remember how I met Holly Ordway and Steven Notman—2 atheists turned apologists—while leading a seminar at the Bayside Apologetics Conference featuring J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. I never got to hear their presentation, cause I was lecturing at the exact same time. But I did read Holly’s book, Not God’s Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith (Listed in my post, “7 Books to Give as Gifts“) and loved it.

Inside the Mind of An Atheist

Maybe you saw Holly and Steven summarizing their talk, “Inside the Mind of an Atheist,” in this video and wished you could hear more. Now you can. After the Bayside event, William Lane Craig invited Holly and Stephen to share at his defender’s class. And thanks to Holly, you can hear the whole presentation on her blog, where she wrote:

We have quite different stories in many respects — Stephen’s journey was more emotional, mine more intellectual — highlighting the fact that there is no “one size fits all” method for evangelism.

By the way, you’ll notice their presentation is now called “Inside the Mind of a Former Atheist;” something we joked about in the control room at Bayside. All fixed now.

Download the Presentation

Get the Full Story

Once hostile to Christianity, Holly’s search for truth took her on an intellectual and emotional journey from atheism to faith in Jesus. She’s a college professor and a competitive sabre fencer. After listening to the presentation, look inside Holly’s new book: Not God’s Type: A Rational Academic Finds a Radical Faith

]]>http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2010/12/audio-former-atheists-stephen-notman-holly-ordway/feed/1William Lane Craig Talks About Debating Richard Dawkinshttp://www.apologeticsguy.com/2010/11/william-lane-craig-richard-dawkins-mexico-debate/
http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2010/11/william-lane-craig-richard-dawkins-mexico-debate/#commentsWed, 17 Nov 2010 19:18:06 +0000http://www.apologeticsguy.com/?p=2362Better Than Boxing Last weekend, I was probably one of the only Filipino guys more excited about a philosophical debate than the Pacquiao/Margarito fight. But hey, that’s me! Of course, I’m talking about the panel debate, Does the Universe Have a Purpose? which happened at Complejo Cultural Universitario in Pueblo, Mexico. Get in the Ring […]

Better Than Boxing

Last weekend, I was probably one of the only Filipino guys more excited about a philosophical debate than the Pacquiao/Margarito fight. But hey, that’s me! Of course, I’m talking about the panel debate, Does the Universe Have a Purpose? which happened at Complejo Cultural Universitario in Pueblo, Mexico.

Get in the Ring

About 3,000 attended the debate and 2 million people saw it on TV after the boxing match. I actually wondered why William Lane Craig was debating Richard Dawkins in a full-on boxing ring! Guess the organizers wanted to extend the boxing metaphor to the world of ideas.

It was fun to see Doug Geivett and Michael Shermer on the ticket, too (And not just cause I used to work for Doug Geivett!). This was huge. The stats don’t even count people like me who saw the live video feed online. I hear the debate’s also coming to movie theaters in Mexico soon.

The atheist side was argued by Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer (Skeptic magazine), and Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion). The theist side was argued by William Lane Craig, Doug Geivett and an L.A. Rabbi, David Wolpe.

In His Own Words

William Lane Craig reflected on the weekend in his letter to friends of Reasonable Faith. He wrote, “Three major characteristics of the conference presentations struck me forcefully.”

1. Naturalism

There was no cognizance of God or even of religion’s contribution to culture and humanity.

2. Scientism

The unspoken assumption throughout the conference was that science, and science alone, is the way to truth and knowledge. It’s not just that religious knowledge was excluded. Rather any and every question, even questions that are properly philosophical, was considered only insofar as it could be addressed scientifically.

3. Utopianism

There was a pervasive sentiment that science and technology are the savior of mankind and are about to usher us into a golden age. There seemed to be a consistent refusal to face the problem of the human propensity to evil. While we can all rejoice in the marvelous advances in medical technology and in the increasing per capita income in developing countries, still history surely teaches us to be suspicious of naïve optimism about the inevitability of human progress.

With this steady stream of unthinking naturalism, scientism, and utopianism, you can imagine how refreshed I was by Doug Geivett’s arrival on Saturday morning! We rode to the conference venue, where we met David Wolpe. A coin flip determined that the atheist side would go first. Talking with David, we agreed that I should lead off to lay the groundwork for the debate, David would extend our case, and Doug would be anchor man. As it turned out, this worked really well.

While Doug and I dismantled the atheists’ arguments philosophically, David really connected with the audience emotionally, so our styles beautifully complemented each other. After participating in this conference and debate, I came away thankful that the biblical world and life view can confidently hold its own in the city of ideas!

Get the Latest

You can get more updates like this from from William Lane Craig by subscribing to his free newsletter. For more on the debate, check out Doug Geivett’s commentary and comments from those who saw it live.

You can also listen to William Lane Craig talk about his experience at the debate in this audio interview.

]]>http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2010/11/william-lane-craig-richard-dawkins-mexico-debate/feed/10Watch William Lane Craig Debate Richard Dawkinshttp://www.apologeticsguy.com/2010/11/william-lane-craig-richard-dawkins-panel-debate/
http://www.apologeticsguy.com/2010/11/william-lane-craig-richard-dawkins-panel-debate/#commentsSat, 13 Nov 2010 17:07:48 +0000http://www.apologeticsguy.com/?p=2340The Live Debate I’m watching the panel debate, “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” LIVE from Complejo Cultural Universitario in Puebla, Mexico—right now via this link (11/13/2010). The affirmative aside is being argued by Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett. The negative side is being argued by Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins. […]

The Live Debate

I’m watching the panel debate, “Does the Universe Have a Purpose?” LIVE from Complejo Cultural Universitario in Puebla, Mexico—right now via this link (11/13/2010).

The affirmative aside is being argued by Rabbi David Wolpe, William Lane Craig, Douglas Geivett. The negative side is being argued by Matt Ridley, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins. I’m so proud of our Biola guys. William Lane Craig was one of my favorite professors and I used to work for Doug Geivett, too. I’m having a blast watching this—it’s also cool that my wife speaks Spanish and can understand the voiceover!